Kenneth Waltz, the father of structural realism, provides us
with a more updated version of the realist perspective in ‘Political Structures’.
While in the last session we tried to look at every aspect of what constitutes
the international realm, Waltz is looking to simplify things by completely
ignoring the individual actions of political players and solely focusing on
state structures and units. It is a unitary approach to international politics;
there are structures and processes involving the interaction of these
structures. Structure is based on the fact that units put side by side have
different interactions between them.
Structure is an arrangement of political institutions
defined first by order, then by the functions of its units and then by the
spread of its capabilities across these units. He says that structure’s
definition is abstract enough to be overarching; that its sole purpose is to
show how units are arranged. Structure and process have to be differentiated in
order to be clearly defined. Structures then shape processes and vice versa. He
cites the example of the limitations of the British electoral process by explaining
the structure which makes the executive power more constrained. You can make
comparisons from the structure of one country with similar structures in other
country.
The realist perspective definitely seeps in whereby Waltz
explains that structures in the end have to be analyzed by their spread of
capabilities. This spread of capabilities is the basis for the power dynamics
of the international system so touted by Waltz and the other realists. It is a
bit paradoxical in nature to analyze the spread of capabilities since we’re
only supposed to look at structure and not the units but this exception is made
to show variations in structures by analyzing varying amounts of capabilities.
It is as in market structure; firms are not defined, only counted. In the same
way, states aren’t individually analyzed, only their interactions as a group
are relevant.
It is a useful method
for empirical calculations since the model is simplistic and allows many comparisons
to be made but I think Waltz goes to great lengths to paper the cracks of his
theory. Individual actions matter because they go a long way towards explaining
why international political processes occur. Structural realism is too hardline
to properly provide a thorough analysis of International Relations.
Well if its too "hardline" to understand how the international system works, what is a better alternative? Perhaps an approach that incorporates individual actors within states as well? But doesn't structural realism help to simplify how we analyze IR?
ReplyDeleteThe problem that I personally have with simplifying anything related to human interaction is that it's too complex. You cannot perfectly simplify IR theory because social sciences cannot be summed up quantitatively without missing out on something. This is why every week we see some new addition made to existing IR theory with scathing critiques on obvious things which were lacking in the last theory. So this need to create blanket terms for IR theory is problematic, at best. I find it to be dumbing down rather than winnowing, wouldn't you agree? As someone who likes the qualitative side more.
ReplyDeleteLook I do think that there is a bit of "dumbing down" - though I would call it simplifying - done for expediency sake. While political scientists (mostly) recognize how complex the political/social world is, we do need to simplify in order to discuss certain concepts/ideas. For example, when we say "Pakistan does not want to have strong relations with India", we're simplifying a ton of information into what is mostly a true statement. Yes there are elements within Pakistan that do what strong relations with India, but for the sake of simplicity and to discuss a general theme, isn't there explanatory value to saying "Pakistan doesn't want strong relations with India"? Don't we have to simplify to talk about political events on some level? I'm not saying this is perfect or the best way to go about looking at the international world, but I think it is necessary to simplify complex ideas/concepts at times in order to discuss and better understand IR.
Delete